Francis Gay Mafia Bombshell: The Day After

<a href="https://www.irishtimes.com/"Front webpage of the Irish Times on Sunday morning

How very, very different Pope Francis’s claims of sorrow over clerical sex abuse sound in light of Archbishop Vigano’s credible claims that he told Francis personally that Cardinal McCarrick was an abuser — but the Pope rehabilitated McCarrick anyway. Veteran Vatican journalist Marco Tosatti, writing in the Italian newspaper La Verità today, called the Vigano declaration “one of the most dramatic and important documents which I have ever read in 40 years of covering religious news (and in a half century of journalism).”

Watch at least the first couple of minutes of this clip from a McCarrick speech at Villanova in 2013, six months after Bergoglio was elected pope. In it, McCarrick talks about a “distinguished Italian gentleman” who came to him on the eve of the conclave to ask for a favor related to something back in the United States. The man, powerful in Rome (said McCarrick), suggested that he “talk up” Bergoglio, because “give him five years, he could remake the Church.” McCarrick said he agreed, and did as he was asked. McCarrick frames this as an act of care for the poor. It sounds very, very different in light of the Vigano revelations, doesn’t it?

Is that “distinguished Italian gentleman” Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, then the Vatican secretary of state, fingered by Vigano as a promoter of gay bishops and cardinals, as well as the figure who protected McCarrick in the Curia? Last year, it emerged that Bertone was at the heart of a case in which $500,000 was diverted from a papal charity to renovate his luxury penthouse. The money was intended for a Rome children’s hospital supported by the charity. It was taken from the Papal Foundation, [UPDATE: I got this fact wrong. It was taken from a different charity, not the Papal Foundation. I regret the error — RD] a powerful charity co-founded in 1988 by none other than the ambitious Archbishop of Newark, Theodore McCarrick. Michelle Boorstein of the Washington Post writes:

In 1988, McCarrick co-founded the Papal Foundation, a nonprofit organization that raises millions for the Vatican. He sometimes rushed to the side of the country’s wealthiest Catholics in their times of personal crisis, following up to raise money later, according to two people who witnessed such interactions.

“The Papal Foundation was a huge point of leverage for him in terms of going to Rome,” said Steve Schneck, the longtime head of the Institute for Policy Research and Catholic Studies at Catholic University. Schneck worked often with McCarrick. “There is not a Catholic organization in the United States he hasn’t raised money for.”

It’s how he bought influence. In 2002, the source who first tipped me off about the trip some lay Catholics took to Rome to warn the Vatican not to advance the abuser McCarrick to Washington, told me the trip failed because, in his estimate, McCarrick had raised tens of millions for the Church, and had ingratiated himself with the right people in the Curia.

Here’s an issue that I would like to see Vatican reporters chase: The “distinguished Italian gentleman” came to visit McCarrick in Rome in early 2013, as the conclave was about to start. He knew that a new pope would be coming in, and that he would be stepping down as Secretary of State, the No. 2 in the Vatican hierarchy. Could that “favor” the Italian gentleman (assuming it was Bertone) asked of McCarrick have been for Papal Foundation help in paying for the renovation of the penthouse he intended to use as his retirement headquarters?

If it was Bertone, the “five years to change the Church” line is absolutely sinister, in light of the Vigano revelations.

This has immediate implications for the future of the American Church. How can anybody trust Rome to investigate the US bishops now? For years I’ve been told that the 2005-06 Vatican-ordered investigation of US seminaries was a sham because it was led by then-Archbishop, now Cardinal, Edwin O’Brien — believed by some insiders to be part of the lavender mafia, the gay lobby within the Church intent on protecting its own. In his testimony, Vigano says that O’Brien is indeed part of this group. How is it possible for anybody Rome appoints from within the Church to investigate now? It’s not.

McCarrick continued right to the end, with plenty of attention from Pope Francis, to use his influence in the appointments of his protégés, who today occupy important positions in the United States and in the Vatican: from Cardinals Blaise Cupich and Joseph Tobin, archbishop of Chicago and Newark respectively, to Cardinal Kevin Farrell, prefect of the dicastery for laity, family and life, and today the organizer of the world meeting of families in Dublin.

Cupich, Tobin, and Farrell constitute the vanguard in the reversal of positions that Pope Francis has wanted to impose in the hierarchy of the United States. And all three are fervent supporters of the Jesuit James Martin, the promoter of a substantial revision of the doctrine of the Catholic Church on homosexuality, who has been called by Farrell as a speaker at the meeting in Dublin.

Among the cardinals of the older generation most esteemed by Bergoglio is also Donald Wuerl, McCarrick’s successor in Washington and previously the bishop of Pittsburgh, where however a Pennsylvania grand jury accused him – in a report made public last August 14 – of covering up for his priests who were guilty of abuse.

Indeed, all those men’s names appear in the Vigano document as favorites of McCarrick’s. Vigano, a former senior Vatican diplomat, says neither Cupich nor Tobin were on the list for their current sees, but were leapfrogged over everybody else thanks to somebody’s influence with Francis.

Cardinal Farrell is the chief organizer of the World Meeting of Families, which concludes today in Dublin with a papal mass, starting at 9 am US Central time. The speakers including Cardinals Cupich, Tobin, Wuerl, O’Malley, and Maradiaga of Honduras, who is immersed in his own gay sex scandal at the Tegucigalpa seminary. Wuerl dropped out after the Pennsylvania sex abuse report, and O’Malley also quit the program to focus on cleaning up gay sex and booze problems in the Boston seminary. The others carried on, as did Father James Martin, granted a keynote address at the meeting, which he used to lambaste “homophobic” pastors.

An informed source told me several weeks back that the Irish bishops were debating internally whether or not to let a gay couple go forward to present the gifts during the papal mass. We will find out shortly how that debate was settled. The symbolism of allowing a gay couple to do this would be stunning. It would be a signal from the pope to normalize homosexuality within parish life. As ever with Francis, don’t listen to what he says, but watch what he does.

Supporters of Pope Francis are taking to social media this morning. Some are asking how it could be true that Pope Benedict restricted McCarrick, but McCarrick continued to exercise public ministry. But that is precisely the point! McCarrick defied Benedict, and knew that he could defy Benedict, because he was protected by powerful curial cardinals. Benedict knew that the curia wouldn’t obey him, which is why he resigned — that has been the story for years, and now Vigano’s statement backs that up.

Francis supporters are also decrying Vigano’s “hit piece,” denouncing it as a political document. Of course it’s a political document! This is high-level score-settling here. But so what? That’s what whistleblowers do. The important thing is whether or not the charges are true.

To that end, this morning, the Bishop of Tyler, Texas, is calling for a full investigation of the Vigano charges, releasing this statement:

Dear Priests, Deacons, Religious and all Holy Faithful of the Diocese of Tyler,

A letter by Archbishop Vigano, former Nuncio to the United States, raises grave allegations and calls for the resignation of numerous high ranking prelates including Pope Francis.

Let us be clear that they are still allegations but as your shepherd I find them to be credible. Using this standard the response must be a thorough investigation similar to those conducted any time allegations are deemed to be credible. I do not have the authority to launch such an investigation but I will lend my voice in whatever way necessary to call for this investigation and urge that it’s findings demand accountability of all found to be culpable even at the highest levels of the Church.

As this unfolds I urge all in the Diocese of Tyler to pray fervently for Holy Mother Church and beg the Intercession of Our Blessed Mother. We are the flock of Jesus Christ. He is Lord of His Church and His Holy Spirit will guide us through this darkness.

Almighty God Father, Son and Spirit have mercy on your Church and cleanse her in the fires of your Love.

Blessed Virgin Mary, Pray for us

All Sainted Popes & Bishops in Heaven, Pray for us

All Holy Men and Women, Pray for us

I direct all priests to include this notice in the masses on August 26, and post it on their websites and other social media immediately.

Most Reverend Joseph E. Strickland

Bishop of Tyler

Everything now depends on what the bishops and the laity do. The high-level Francis supporters in the Vatican and in the media are going to do everything possible to discredit Vigano personally. What Vigano has done, though, is to let the entire Catholic world know that all the things they have been seeing and suspecting are likely true, and that they aren’t crazy. If Vigano is telling the truth, then the senior hierarchy of the Catholic Church has been captured by a powerful group of gay, and gay-sympathizing, prelates who have Pope Francis in their pocket, and who are setting out to remake the Catholic Church.

Late last night, I texted a traditionalist Catholic friend to express my sadness to him over all this. He responded:

Tonight is the first day of hope.

What he meant is that for the first time, the truth has been revealed by a Vatican insider. Whatever happens now, that bell cannot be unrung.

UPDATE: A reader points to Cardinal Wuerl’s denial this morning that he knew anything about McCarrick’s molestation, and says:

Wuerl says no one told him, thus he is claiming explicitly that the Vatican never informed him. That would mean that Vatican officials shielded McCarrick.

Wuerl is like Vigano in that both have publicly claimed that Vatican officials shielded McCarrick.

Wuerl’s claims like Vigano’s are so serious that they must be investigated.

The fact the Wuerl and Vigano don’t agree about their own interaction (although in fairness Vigano himself suggests he did not go into specifics with Wuerl) actually strengthen the credibility of their underlying assertion about the Vatican knowing and not telling. They are clearly not in league with each other, but their claims relative to the Vatican are the same.

UPDATE.2: An aerial shot of Dublin’s Phoenix Park at the papal mass today:

All that green space was supposed to be covered with people. Organizers expected 500,000 to the mass. They got under 130,000. Part of the reason could be that it was raining. An Irish source tells me that there was an effort to get people to obtain tickets to the papal mass then refuse to go, so that could account for part of the shockingly low turnout.

In 1979, Pope John Paul II celebrated mass there at the start of his Irish pilgrimage. The turnout was 1.25 million — almost ten times the crowd today for Francis. It was a different Ireland back then.

UPDATE.3: I wondered what Francis would say about all this in the papal press conference on the flight back to Rome. This is beyond pathetic:

“I read the statement this morning, and I must tell you sincerely that, I must say this, to you and all those who are interested: Read the statement carefully and make your own judgment,” he answered. “I will not say a single word on this.”

Speaking aboard the papal plane from Rome to Dublin Aug. 26, Francis said he believes in the “journalistic capacity to draw your own conclusions,” calling it an “act of faith.”

“When some time passes and you have drawn your conclusions, I may speak. But I would like your professional maturity to do the work for you. It will be good for you,” he told members of the press.

Asked in a follow up question when he first learned about the abuse allegations against McCarrick, Pope Francis responded, “This is part of the statement. Study it and then I will say.”

How hard is it to say, “These allegations are false”? If they are false, that is. This non-response response does not inspire confidence.

Meanwhile, a priest named Carlos Martins posted this to Facebook:

I just spent the last two hours on the phone with a friend in the Vatican Curia. He said that the news of Archbishop Viganò has hit the Curia like an atomic bomb. Two things are universally noted regarding Viganò: 1) He is highly respected as a professional, and 2) His Curial positions gave him clear access to the damning information he reported. In other words, he is not a hack, and he is not relying on rumor. This makes his report absolutely worthy of belief.

Viganò always had a reputation for being a combatant of internal Vatican corruption. In fact, during the Vatican leaks scandal, whistle-blowing reports that he authored were among the main documents that were leaked. This was an attempt by the persons he outed to pre-empt the report’s impact and suck the energy out of the attempt to investigate their claims. Naturally, the subsequent energy went into investigating the Vatileaks situation in general, and Viganò was exiled as Nuncio to the United States for being a trouble maker who produced “erroneous assessments” (words from a joint statement issued by Cardinal-President Emeritus Giovanni Lajolo, President Giuseppe Bertello, Secretary-General Giuseppe Sciacca and former Vice Secretary-General Giorgio Corbellini on behalf of the Governatorate of the Vatican). To put this kind of demotion in perspective, as Delegate for Pontifical Representations—a position from which he was THEN PROMOTED to Secretary General of the Governatorate— Viganò was in charge of all the Apostolic Nunciatures in the world. Thus, when garbage was reported to the Holy See on a bishop or Cardinal—like it was with McCarrick of Washington, DC—Viganò was the first to know about it, because his desk is where the information landed. For him to be demoted as the Nuncio to the USA, from having been promoted to as the Vatican’s number 3 administrator behind the pope, was severe, to say the least. In other words, Viganò is not a hack, but a highly respected individual who had been regularly promoted for doing his job well.

In the words of the Curial official I spoke with this afternoon, what Viganò has reported “makes the Borgia popes look like saints.” The feeling in the Curia right now is that the response of Viganò’s enemies will to try to discredit him personally, both because of the impeccability of Viganò’s character and the impossibility of his having interpreted the facts incorrectly. Their only hope will be to try to take energy away from the perversion and corruption that he uncovered. They will likely state that he is a bitter man who is seeking personal aggrandizement after having been exiled from Rome. When this occurs, don’t buy into it. Viganò is retired. He has nothing personally to gain from this.

187 Responses to Francis Gay Mafia Bombshell: The Day After

I agree, those are the two sides in the fight within the Novus Ordo New Vernacular churches of the West. A pox on both their houses, as they say. It looks to this traditionalist awfully like the same kind of fights between more and less conservative heretics in the Church of England or the Lutheran churches down the centuries. As I see it, you have on one side the completely logically consistent liberals who will put up with or even welcome all manner of deviancy in defence of their liberal principles, and on the other people like Ratzinger who midwifed the revolution but find the results somewhat unpalatable. The latter are simply unreal, holding their hands over their eyes (at best), denying facts or lamenting them whilst refusing to trace them back to their true (and actually, bloody obvious) causes.

Non-Catholics cannot understand any of this, as a rule, and shouldn’t be commenting, except perhaps to say “how disgusting and I am sorry for you lot and hope you clean it up.”

As for clerical celibacy, perhaps I am somewhat biased against the liberal position by the fact that the Church of England minister in my home town when I was very young, was a married man and was cheerfully seducing teen boys. This used to be a standing joke about C of E clerics, of course, and most of them were married. Same with Boy Scouts leaders, of course. Getting rid of celibacy ain’t the answer. Getting rid of people who want to pervert boys is the answer. No, this is not hatred, of anybody, it’s common sense.

I’ve always been taught that the Holy Ghost makes sure that the elected Pope is just who the Church needs at that time. For instance, if a Pope does something bad enough to lead to a true reform, even if bad in itself, then the Holy Ghost is doing His job.

I’ve argued for some time that the Holy Spirit sent us Francis as a way of undoing the rampant papalatry that has developed over the past century and a half but really took off during the pontificate if JPII.

I haven’t seen a single comment reflecting on the fact that the clergy is no more gay now than it ever has been and most likely homosexual men make up a plurality, if not a majority, of the clergy…and alway have

This is unlikely. For many years the priesthood and the monastery were the assigned lot of younger sons, whether they felt a calling or not. That might make for a large number of unhappy clerics disinclined to keep their vows. But disproportionately homosexual? I don’t see how that follows.

Boz: And besides O’Brien, Maciel was also disciplined in public. If Benedict was still under the delusion that it was a good thing to cover up a scandal, why would he take public action against someone who had been defended (and indeed praised) by John Paul?

I am not a doubter like Catherine or Todd – I am just confused. We need to have Benedict speak in public to clear up the confusion. If his mind is not all there (as unfortunately implied by the claim that he says he imposed sanctions but cannot remember what they were), there must be someone else who has knowledge of the truth. Surely Vigano was not the only person who had knowledge of these secret sanctions (if they were real).

Vatican-watching is pooh-poohed among faithful Catholics as excessive worldliness. This ever-expanding scandal shows why it’s important for regular Catholics to care about, and keep an eye on, the workings of the hierarchy. Anything else is a see-no-evil, hear-no-evil denialism that only helps perpetuate the culture of secrecy in which pederasty and coverups have flourished. The bishops cannot govern themselves, and if the laity doesn’t pressure them to do the right things, secular authorities will step in, and worse, they will be right to do so.

Apparently there are some things in this letter from Vigano that don’t add up. For one, he quashed an investigation with signed affidavits against Archbishop John Nienstedt, for sexually harassing seminarians and living an openly gay lifestyle(which he adamantly denies). Nienstedt is obviously more “conservative” than McCarrick and may have held favor with Vigano.

There is zero evidence that Pope BXVI ever issued sanctions against McCarrick, and if he did, why weren’t they made public? In the end, Pope Francis did issue sanctions against McCarrick, if he was really part of this nefarious lavender mafia, McCarrick would probably still be in good standing.

Plus, everyone knows LifeSiteNews is a politically motivated media outlet that has an axe to grid with Pope Francis. I hardly considerate an objective unbiased news outlet.

It is weird how Archbishop Vigano went about this whole thing, going to a pro-Trump website, and the substance of the letter seems sketchy–something is wrong with this whole picture. I’m giving Pope Francis the benefit of doubt on this one, he just seems more credible than Vigano at this point.

[NFR: 1) I believe the evidence is clear that Vigano did try to crush the investigation against Nienstedt, and that Vigano needs to be held accountable for that; 2) but that does not negate what Vigano is claiming in this document; it only makes him something of a hypocrite; 3) National Catholic Register’s good Vatican reporter Edward Pentin quotes someone from Benedict’s circle confirming that BXVI sanctioned McCarrick, and this morning, a former official in the DC nunciature confirmed on the record that “Vigano said the truth”; 4) it was unwise of Vigano to release this to a partisan website, but that does not negate the truth of his claims, which stand or fall on their own; 5) Pope Francis could have easily said, “These claims are false,” if indeed they are false. — RD]

So Francis is accused of lifting the sanctions of a known homosexual abuser and pederast and then making him a trusted advisor and his response is “draw your own conclusions” and “it is an act of faith”?

Pathetic indeed. He could have at least said “no collusion”. I’ll draw my own conclusions, but Francis won’t like them.

Tfw Donald Trump is about to be impeached next Congress and yet still has more moral authority than the Pope.

Anybody who thinks that actively gay priests, child molesters, sexual molesters of adults, and the bishops/cardinals covering for them fall predominantly on one side of the guitar music debate (or even the gay marriage debate) is a fool whose gullibility will be used to defend evil.

Vigano’s statement almost certainly contains large amounts of truth. It is a political attack though, and almost certainly omits a great deal of misdeeds by those on Vigano’s political side that he also has knowledge of. My greatest hope is that this triggers a war of malicious truth telling by both sides. We will know it isn’t complete if underground prostitution rings and the embezzlement of billions of dollars have not been revealed.

We need investigators from outside the Church though. I’ve been hearing good things about this Mueller character lately…

Viganò concelebrated with McCarrick when supposedly McCarrick was forbidden to say Mass.
McCarrick said Mass in St Peter’s tomb, rigthly under Pope Benedict nose, when supposedly he was forbidden to say Mass.
The homosexual cardinal is not EDWIN O’Brien but KEITH O’Brien. He was publically sanctioned by Benedict. Why McCarrick wasn’t?
No proof of the existence of those “sanctions” but Viganò’s word.
Viganó blocked investigations against the homosexual bishop John Nienstedt.
Probable conclusion: Viganò is lying.

Have to laugh at Rod’s NFR – “have you been to Rome? Been to D.C.?” I used to think there were too many priests in a Rome, and they should be reassigned to missions. Then I went to Rome. The city is so seductive. I still think (theoretically) that the clerics should be reassigned but I know if I were living in Rome, I too would fall into the temptation of doing anything and everything to stay there!

I totally forgot about the Mahony episode in the late 2000s. Gomez went public with his attempts to restrict Mahony, but I’m sure Benedict got nowhere if McCarrick dug in his heels and Wuerl looked the other way.

Re: For many years the priesthood and the monastery were the assigned lot of younger sons, whether they felt a calling or not.

Also, for guys from modest means but with a good head on their shoulders it was a means of social advancement. Of course neither they nor the younger lack-land sons were necessarily celibate either, but the problem then tended to be mistresses or illicit wives and bastard children.

Just another example of how belief in a God does not equal being moral. All atheist I know are as moral as religious people and some more so. Hopefully more Christians will see this and find a respect for nonbelievers. We do not need God to keep us in check. More of us are seeing the hypocrisy as a sign of impending doom for theists

And don’t forget this fawning 2014 article in the National Catholic Reporter:

McCarrick loves to tell that story, because he loves to tell good stories and because he has a sense of humor as keen as the pope’s. But the exchange also says a lot about the improbable renaissance McCarrick is enjoying as he prepares to celebrate his 84th birthday in July.

McCarrick is one of a number of senior churchmen who were more or less put out to pasture during the eight-year pontificate of Pope Benedict XVI. But now Francis is pope, and prelates like Cardinal Walter Kasper (another old friend of McCarrick’s) and McCarrick himself are back in the mix and busier than ever. …

He retired in 2006 and was sort of spinning his wheels under Benedict. Then Francis was elected, and everything changed.

“Pope Benedict is a wonderful man and was a good friend of mine before he became pope,” McCarrick said. “But he was anxious to bring the church back to where he thought it should be, and I guess I wasn’t one of those who he thought would help him on that. I would have obviously done what he asked.” …

That sort of moderation is also characteristic of McCarrick’s successor in Washington, Cardinal Donald Wuerl, who has also become a key figure in the new pontificate.

McCarrick has high praise for Wuerl and always reminds interviewers that Wuerl heads the D.C. archdiocese, not him. They also operate on different ecclesiastical planes — McCarrick racking up the frequent flier miles and lobbying on Capitol Hill while Wuerl works the inside track between Rome and the U.S.

Why is anyone surprised by this? Cardinal Danneels, the heretic and notorious Episcopal pedophile protector put out to pasture by Benedict, was on the loggia next to Francis when he emerged after his election! He, like other corrupt prelates, have been close collaborators of Francis throughout his pontificate.

It was briefly mentioned on NPR on the way to work this morning. It was characterized as a homophobic manifesto from an Archbishop who once tried to cover up abuse by another bishop, and there was little mention of any other aspect of the story other than Francis’ non-response to it.

Over the last 25 years in Ireland, divorce, contraception, gay marriage and abortion have all been legalized. Why is that? Most of the folks on here want to say it is acceptance of sexual immorality and homosexuality.

I found out this morning that Pope Francis did NOT even KNOW about the laundries, industrial schools, mother and baby homes, and orphanages in Ireland. He did not know about how consistently abusive and immoral those places were. I’m not Catholic nor am I Irish but I knew about all of these things. Have you read about the reaction of the Irish to Pope Francis? Do you not realize how many people there were damaged by these Catholic organizations? Sexual abuse of children is a huge issue there but these centuries-long abuses of both children and women are also a great wound in Ireland, one the Church can’t see and that matters so little to the Church that the Pope is not even aware of them. If these wounds were not there, abortion would never have been legalized in Ireland.

Why is it that women and children suffered so badly for their sins or for the sin of being born to a “fallen woman” or the sin of being an orphan? Where were the “homes” that were essentially labor camps for the men who got the women pregnant or who abandoned their children?

Why does a priest who publicly states he supports ordination of women get immediately excommunicated but a priest who repeatedly abuses children gets moved around until the damn breaks and then gets to retire to a Church-run luxury retirement home?

The Catholic organizations that still exist that ran those “homes” FOR A PROFIT, still refuse to contribute to the funds to help the survivors in spite of UN calls for them to do so as well as calls from the people of Ireland. And this abuse happened all over the world, not just in Ireland. There is no confession, there is not repentance, there is no reparation, just a bunch of empty words, as most of the people of Ireland continue to observe.

Jesus Christ’s message was one of forgiveness, mercy and grace for ALL people, not just MEN.

You think I’m a troll when all I was trying to do was to add a relatively objective voice, one who actually had sympathy for the RCC as well as for homosexuals but I’m done. I’ll pray for the people damaged by the RCC but I’m done praying for that thoroughly corrupted institution any more. I hope it burns to the ground.

Keep at it, Rod. Go after those homos. Ignore the abuses of the Church that have no relation to homosexuality or “liquid modernity” (those homes were the antithesis of liquid modernity). The end result for the US will be the same as for the Irish.

Stephen Pickard says:
Just another example of how belief in a God does not equal being moral. All atheist I know are as moral as religious people and some more so. Hopefully more Christians will see this and find a respect for nonbelievers. We do not need God to keep us in check.”

I do not know of any believer who equates belief in God with being moral, although I expect there are some. I do know of believers, including myself, who think that it is difficult for an entire society of atheists to reach an agareement on what morality is and to hold to it, more or less, without belief in God or in the gods. This is particularly true for the poorest members of such societies, who are least likely to reap rewards like family security, health, and interesting, useful but not backbreaking work. That is why working and under-class English people’s lives have become so morally chaotic as even token religious belief declines there. The stories I read of life in their ‘estates’ are rather appalling.

In any case, this business of being ‘as moral as religious people’ surely needs some qualification? I would be more convinced by these pronouncements by atheists if only so many of them didn’t appear to think that there was really nothing wrong with promiscuity, abortion, and euthanasia, as long as all of these were consensual. I don’t mean that they take part in such activities – many do not – merely that they don’t appear to understand why they are harmful. The other, related problem with atheists is that they appear to think that intelligence is the only element in humans that makes us worthy of consideration, and that humans who lack it should simply be left to wallow in the chaos they create.

@ JohnPerth says: August 26, 2018 at 11:35 pm
“Getting rid of people who want to pervert boys is the answer. No, this is not hatred, of anybody, it’s common sense.”

Right. Getting rid of people who want to pervert boys is the answer. The ones who want to abuse little girls or women can stay because who cares about little girls or women? Not the Church and not the ideologues whose only mission is to make sure the gay ideologues are banished. NOTHING ELSE MATTERS.

There are plenty of Catholics in Ireland who agree with me, non-Catholic that I am.

Sara, I agree the Magdalene Laundries were a tragedy, as was Tuam, etc etc. I am in no way defending these, but I will point out that Ireland was desperately poor until very recently. The normal looking Ireland we see now is in no way what existed merely decades ago. In a poor society, norms are very strict. Any deviation can cause trouble to the whole. Not that these events are exonerated. I’m just lucky I did not live there (or indeed many other times and places). I’m not Irish – in fact I lean English – but when I read some histories of Ireland, I was shocked to my core. ( The Great Hunger by Cecil Woodham- Smith, for example)

@Ms, I think you are right to point out how terribly poor Ireland was in the recent past. Show me a terribly poor Western society in which the children of unwed mothers were welcomed into the community. I don’t think you will find one. I am Irish, by the way (well, Irish American, but of very recent vintage).

@ Ms says: August 27, 2018 at 12:10 pm
“Ireland was desperately poor until very recently.”

Actually, I know quite a bit about the history of Ireland and am aware of the poverty. I am also aware that these same things happened in a whole bunch of other countries as well.

My response to you is the same as that of the Irish to Francis – “You aren’t defending it? You feel bad about it? Then DO SOMETHING to prove it.” The Church and the Catholic organizations involved choose not to do so. Ireland is rejecting Catholicism because of that CHOICE, repeatedly made for many years now, more than because of the history and abuse itself.

The Church is supposed to protect the most vulnerable but it exploited them and treated them like subhuman filth. Much of what was done had nothing to do with money but with cover-ups.

And Pope Francis knows nothing of this long history even though he presumably was “prepared” for his trip there? Perhaps someone will tell him about the Inquisition or the Witch Trials one of these days.

I don’t care whether or not the RCC ordains women but honestly how can it be that supporting that idea means immediate excommunication with no attempt at “rehabilitation” but repeated sexual abuse of children over decades is tolerable?

@ CatherineNY says: August 27, 2018 at 12:36 pm
“Show me a terribly poor Western society in which the children of unwed mothers were welcomed into the community.”

Where were children forcibly taken from their mothers against the mother’s wishes? Where were children’s names changed so that they would never be able to find their relatives? Where were women literally kidnapped from brothels and worked to death?

I’ve read a lot about Ireland and I’ve been there including the EPIC Irish Immigration Museum, the Jeanie Johnston replica ship and other historical places. Yes, the poverty was horrendous but it doesn’t justify it.

Have you read the stories of women who survived these places and are still alive today? Or of the men who were boys in those “homes”? How does poverty justify those stories?

Sara, I agree with you. What indeed will be done? And I agree that some actions get immediate excommunication and others (more grievous) get ignored. I know the explanations about how one is a sin and the other a deviation from canon law. Still doesn’t convince me.

I agree that the Pope should have done his homework on the particularly egregious circumstances of how religious orders abused women (and men) before visiting Ireland. Given that Irish abuse survivor Marie Collins quit an advisory counsel over the inaction of the Vatican, the surprising thing is that any Irish had any time for even more of his hollow words.

What I also want to say is that, in the main, the Irish situation is not the headline news Rod’s blog is addressing. Just because women’s abuse is not the central focus of the discussion, precisely no one I’ve read here discounts that tragedy. The continuing fallout of the McCarrick bombshell is not related to it, that’s all.

Full disclosure: my knowledge of Ireland comes from my time there as a graduate student in mass communication.

@ thomas tucker – Unless you’re talking about a one man church with yourself as the only congregant (an option unfortunately widely taken)you’re a hypocrite. Protestant pastors wield quite a bit of spiritual authority over their congregations.

Protestant Onlooker says: August 27, 2018 at 3:30 pm
“Just because women’s abuse is not the central focus of the discussion, precisely no one I’ve read here discounts that tragedy. The continuing fallout of the McCarrick bombshell is not related to it, that’s all.”

I haven’t been trying to push abuse of women as a topic. I’ve been saying that the problems go well beyond a “lavender mafia”. The only way this could happen is with blackmail, extortion and other such behaviors among significant numbers of the clergy, especially those at the top. The teaching one thing and doing another and much more. The pleas for forgiveness when there is never anything actually done to try to make things better for ANY abuse victims. The commission that Marie Collins quit was not adequately funded although millions are spent lobbying against legislation to protect victims. That commission met twice a year and one of their activities in 2017 was to watch “Spotlight” together. They managed to get rid of all 3 of the abuse survivors that were on the commission at the beginning.

The duplicity and corruption are breath-taking and are not limited to gay clergy.

My primary post above about Ireland was saying that the changes there in rejecting Catholic teaching is due to the inability of the Church to respond to ANY of these many abuses in a way that has any integrity at all. If that continues, the same response will be seen in the US.

@Hibernian: I don’t know which Protestant churches you’ve attended or when, but that wasn’t the case in the Baptist churches I grew up in. The pastor was more of a teacher , explictor, and advisor but well aware that the congregation could hire and fire.